Why do creationists redefine and/or make up words out-of-context?

[OldWiseGuy]

1. they are comparable in the sense that they are both scientific theories, concluded through the same scientific method

2. the point at hand was not about evolution. It was about being able to trust scientific knowledge being accurate, while not having the required expertise to be able to evaluate that accuracy for yourself. My point on that was that "we can know that physicists know that they are talking about when discussing atomic theory, because nukes explode". My point was that science can be trusted due to its practical and very succesfull track record, regardless of our own level of expertise (or lack thereof).

Sounds like 'faith' to me.

 

[Astrophile]

The theory of flight and the ToE are hardly comparable, imo.

They may both have some bearing on the evolution of insects, birds, bats and pterosaurs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Thing is that you believe that one day science will explain that without problem , but that's putting faith into something and it's just like religion , not really science but scientism

Your mindreading device seems broken... I don't "believe" anything.
Nore do I know if science will ever solve certain problems or not. Nore do I make such claims.

However, IF we one day are able to answer these questions - I consider it infinitly more likely that the answers will come through scientific inquiry, not by reading bronze age books.

Yes, science is our best bet in answering such questions.
And that's not a statement of "faith". That's an empirical statement. The scientific method, is our most succesfull method in getting accurate answers to questions about phenomena of reality. That's just a fact.

Cherry picking or ignoring evidence based on presupposition does not make that evidence go away so that's why you see it comming back over and over again...

Do you know what a PRATT is???
The only people who are ignoring things in context of those PRATTs, are those people who present there arguments as if they bring something new to the table... while they are ignoring the fact that those arguments have been refuted, debunked, annihilated, demonstrated false,... a thousand times over.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sounds like 'faith' to me.

It isn't.

 

[Chinchilla]

Your mindreading device seems broken... I don't "believe" anything.
Nore do I know if science will ever solve certain problems or not. Nore do I make such claims.

However, IF we one day are able to answer these questions - I consider it infinitly more likely that the answers will come through scientific inquiry, not by reading bronze age books.

Yes, science is our best bet in answering such questions.
And that's not a statement of "faith". That's an empirical statement. The scientific method, is our most succesfull method in getting accurate answers to questions about phenomena of reality. That's just a fact.




Do you know what a PRATT is???
The only people who are ignoring things in context of those PRATTs, are those people who present there arguments as if they bring something new to the table... while they are ignoring the fact that those arguments have been refuted, debunked, annihilated, demonstrated false,... a thousand times over.

You said that you don't believe anything , well you believe that God does not exist , you can't prove it with observable , repeatable experiment . Agnostic could say he does not know but you claim to know that he does not exist as Atheist .

 

[DogmaHunter]

You said that you don't believe anything , well you believe that God does not exist

Your mind reading device is still broken, I see.

I never made the claim that god does not exist, nore have I ever expressed such a belief.
I don't make such claims and I do not hold such a belief.

Primarily because such negative claims / beliefs are entirely pointless and without merrit.

My atheism is define by answering "no" to the question "do you believe a god exists?" - which is NOT the same thing as claiming the opposite.

, you can't prove it with observable , repeatable experiment

Nore do I have to.
Burden of proof concerning god claims, is in the camp of those who claim that god exists.
You know... the positive claim and all that.

Agnostic could say he does not know but you claim to know that he does not exist as Atheist .

I challenge you to quote me where I ever said such a thing.
I have almost 14.000 posts. I'm telling you right now, not a single of those posts will hold that claim.

Also:

(A)gnosticism and (a)theism, aren't mutually exclusive positions.
The first pertains to knowledge, the second to beliefs (theistic beliefs, specifically).

They are different answers to different questions.
At best, the first is a qualifier of the second.

 

[Brightmoon]

No, not really. an assumption must be made that completely unknown forces acted in an unknown number of first causes in a chain to create the universe. That is a lot of assumptions

don’t you see that’s what you’re doing when you say that Goddidit

 

[HitchSlap]

don’t you see that’s what you’re doing when you say that Goddidit

I hope he appreciates the irony in his statement.

 

[HitchSlap]

don’t you see that’s what you’re doing when you say that Goddidit

I hope he appreciates the irony in his statement.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

They may both have some bearing on the evolution of insects, birds, bats and pterosaurs.

It would have some bearing on their purposeful design.

 

[Chinchilla]

Your mind reading device is still broken, I see.

I never made the claim that god does not exist, nore have I ever expressed such a belief.
I don't make such claims and I do not hold such a belief.

Primarily because such negative claims / beliefs are entirely pointless and without merrit.

My atheism is define by answering "no" to the question "do you believe a god exists?" - which is NOT the same thing as claiming the opposite.




Nore do I have to.
Burden of proof concerning god claims, is in the camp of those who claim that god exists.
You know... the positive claim and all that.



I challenge you to quote me where I ever said such a thing.
I have almost 14.000 posts. I'm telling you right now, not a single of those posts will hold that claim.

Also:

View attachment 231562

(A)gnosticism and (a)theism, aren't mutually exclusive positions.
The first pertains to knowledge, the second to beliefs (theistic beliefs, specifically).

They are different answers to different questions.
At best, the first is a qualifier of the second.

So you claim to be open for evidence and burden of proof is on me, would you accept evidence outside of materialism for existence of God for example one of his divine atribute- foreknowledge ?

 

[Aman777]

don’t you see that’s what you’re doing when you say that Goddidit

Not when God's account of the creation in Genesis AGREES with Science and History, which your changeable Theory does not. It falsely presumes that mindless Nature instilled God's superior intelligence into Apes. Evols cannot show How or When this magical event happened but they preach their "false assumptions" as Fact, to little children. They are willingly ignorant of God's Truth. ll Peter 3:3

 

[HitchSlap]

Not when God's account of the creation in Genesis AGREES with Science and History, which your changeable Theory does not. It falsely presumes that mindless Nature instilled God's superior intelligence into Apes. Evols cannot show How or When this magical event happened but they preach their "false assumptions" as Fact, to little children. They are willingly ignorant of God's Truth. ll Peter 3:3

This makes no sense.

 

[tas8831]

This is actually another perfect example, because the use of "kind" is not at all consistent among creationists. If you ask 5 different creationists for a definition of "kind", you'll get 6 different answers.

Exactly, even the same creationist, depending on the point they are hoping to make.

 

[Brightmoon]

Not when God's account of the creation in Genesis AGREES with Science and History, which your changeable Theory does not. It falsely presumes that mindless Nature instilled God's superior intelligence into Apes. Evols cannot show How or When this magical event happened but they preach their "false assumptions" as Fact, to little children. They are willingly ignorant of God's Truth. ll Peter 3:3

the problem is that no holy book creation stories agree with natural phenomena. Including the Bible versions

 

[AV1611VET]

the problem is that no holy book creation stories agree with natural phenomena. Including the Bible versions

That's a "problem" to you?

I call it a miracle.

 

[tas8831]

My suggestion … if I was an academian trying to point out that the Ark was too small to house all those animals for a year … is to first find out what "kind" means to the person I'm talking to (i.e., "species" or "genus"), then tell them that there's still too many of either to fit aboard the Ark.

All of the below is from this post:

A mathematical refutation of Noah's ark


...According to Panda.org, which is part of the WWF, there are two types of elephants: the Asian and the African. Obviously if we believe the Bible, there would have to be four elephants on the ark.

The Asian elephant eats around 300kg of fodder per day (see Panda.org), while fully grown African elephants eat up to 200kg of food/day (WWF). Now, we know from Gen 6:21 that Noah was commanded to take food for all the animals and his family, thus nullifying a possible miracle explanation for not needing to bring food. Now, if Noah took 4 fully grown elephants he would have needed 1,000 kg of food/day just for the elephants. However, in the interest of being conservative, lets assume that Noah had younger elephants and thus needed less food than a full grown adult. So lets assume that the elephants needed half of their adult counterparts.

Therefore, collectively, the Asian and African elephants would need approximately 500 kg of food/day. That’s 1,102.31 pounds a day!! In the interest of simplicity and being conservative in our estimates lets just say 1,000 pounds of food/day. For the year that they were on the ark, that would mean Noah and family would have needed 365,000 pounds of food for the elephants. This is 1,825 tons, which will be important later.

Next step, calculating how much space was in the ark. This has been done repeatedly so I hope there is little contention here. Gen. 6:15 says, "The length of the ark shall be 300 cubits (aprx. 450 feet), the breadth of it 50 cubits (aprx. 75 feet), and the height of it 30 cubits (aprx. 45 feet)." This is 1,518,750 cubic feet. Let’s also assume for the sake of simplicity and being conservative that the ark was a perfect box with these dimensions (i.e., no space lost at the front or back due to needing to actually float, no need for going through sea/waves, no keel, etc). Also for the sake of simplicity and conservatism, lets assume by some miracle that there was no need for floors, which would take up even more space (this caveat contradicts Gen 6:16 in which God instructs Noah to build 3 decks--but that would take away more space and seeing as there is no mention in the Bible as to how thick the floors were, we cannot calculate their volume). Thus the area of the ground floor would have been 33,750 sq. feet and that the total interior cubic feet are as stated above.

Next we need to know approximately how much space the food for the elephants would have taken up (and ignoring the fact that most of it would have gone bad eventually in a hot damp environment--remember there was only one door and a small window). Just for a side-note, I am also ignoring the fact that many animals are carnivores. That would mean that many more than just a pair of many types of animals were brought aboard that also would have to be fed during the year until the "chosen pair" could eat them. Of course the fact that these "feed" animals also needed to be kept alive, many of which were carnivores also, would have meant that even more animals would have bee needed. It’s a geometrically unsolvable problem for such a situation.

Given that, Elephants are vegetarians; so lets assume that they were fed hay for the entire year (again ignore the monumental task of growing, harvesting, and storing of such an immense amount of hay by one family). According to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, "Regardless of bale size and stacking method, any building with 16' sidewalls will accommodate at least 1 ton of hay in every 20 square feet of floor area." This means one ton of hay needs 320 cubic feet of storage. But it does say 'at least', and of course this is assuming ideal conditions. So again for simplicity and conservatism, lets assume one ton of hay needs 300 cubic feet of storage. That means the 1,825 tons of hay needed for just the 4 elephants alone would have take up 547,500 cubic feet!! That’s about 36% of the space available on the ark, again assuming ridiculously conservative (and sometimes impossible, i.e., no floors) conditions. If we have adult elephants that eat twice as much (again at a very conservative estimate) that’s 72% of the space in the ark for the food for just 4 animals!!!! Not to mention that I haven't added the space that the actual elephants would have needed, which would have been more than just the space they physically occupy, due to the need to exercise, for instance.

 

[Clint Edwards]

don’t you see that’s what you’re doing when you say that Goddidit

Of course I see that. You have your faith, I have nine. Neither is or will be provable.

 

[Clint Edwards]

It makes no difference. But when you are going to invoke such arbitrary faith based "choices" in context of a discussion on a scientific discussion, then it becomes relevant to the point being made. And in that case, it needs to be pointed out how nonsensical it is.

You say nonsensical. PROVE it so. Your opinion, or mine, is worth a hand full of spit, or less.

 

[AV1611VET]

*

1. The food problem was a piece of cake with God. A barrel would suffice. Remember how He fed the widow of Zarephath?

1 Kings 17:16 And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Elijah.

2. The space problem was a piece of cake with God.

If the Ark was a TARDIS booth ... meaning its inside was larger than its outside ... it could house ten trillion to the one hundred trillionth times the amount of animals that boarded it.

Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

How many people can fit under the altar in your church?

In addition, Paul speaks of four dimensions of space.

Ephesians 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

Piece of cake with God.